Search results

That's not MY original analogy. Your response to mine didn't even make sense when compared to mine. That's how you missed it, twice now. Thanks Doc, got it.

Someone in this thread is....

A grape is a berry troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grape

You told me I was wrong with my analogy yet now you're using your analogy to tell me how mine was wrong. No wonder scientists can't get through to you.

At one time we lived in trees and ate mostly berries. Also, I would say that was the majority of stupid people not believing the minority of smart people trying to explain it to them. Hey, just like regular people not believing the scientists that actually know what they're talking about today...

You missed it. He is more likely to die being shot than not shot.

I only need the majority of smart people, not all of them.

Troll post alert

I'm sure it had nothing to do with you trolling this entire thread. Yes, no, maybe.

His first post in this thread and still....

No, I just think you're not.

Start and remember this because you're one of the most pathetic people in this thread and on this forum. I can manage to read your posts that are mostly just nothing but insulting other members but talking to you is just too much. Seriously.

Smoking makes John "60% more likely" to get lung cancer than a nonsmoker over a long enough period of time. There for smoking is a leading cause of cancer and death from cancer. "A gun is used to shoot people, being shot can kill you, however not all people that get shot, die. There for...

I've thought we went over this before, don't quote (talk) to me. I've had enough of you for a lifetime. Use this thread as a reason why. Others are at least trying while all you do is nag about the specific people and not really about the actual stuff discussed. (I'm talking percentage wise)...

Are climate scientists the idiots or the politicians? Just wondering. NASA and majority of climate scientists disagree with some random fucks fabrication on the internet. It couldn't possibly be because they don't care what the UN/US, has to say about it, no, that'd be a reasonable...

You want a Nobel Prize for a black circle? :p

Neil Degrasse Tyson misinformed me on Cosmos. :( :( :( He may never gain my trust back.

Just, no, it doesn't. Just because it was warmer (naturally) in Earths history (which is obvious) in no way means humans aren't causing it now. Has it ever dawned on you it could be both? Of course not, that would be reasonable. The debate is on how much of an impact humans are having on...

From my understanding it's not an 'if' but a 'when'. And being proactive is so much smarter than being reactive. I'm pretty sure that's at the core of the argument among the large majority of climate scientists versus the very small minority of climate scientists. Some want to start taking steps...

He knows the business side now. He'll probably do quite well in my opinion.

A few people in this thread fall into that almost no one category. :D

Wrong again...and...

Will NASA do? http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Not to kick a dead horse but do you realize this guy you quoted (I already gave compelling evidence for as to his bias as he has received money from big oil) at the very least admitted in his interview with Bill Nye that man made climate change is something to worry about? His argument was as to...

What, what.

I wonder why. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/11/17/207051/climate-science-disinformer-richard-lindzen-accuses-colleagues-of-overt-cheating/ What you think seems to not coincide with reality so I'll take my chances.

You sure don't sound it.

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/one-of-the-6-biggest-ecological-disasters-in-the-last-4-5-billion-years-is-happening-right-now/ No, that's not what it means. I don't think you understand how the world actually works enough.

The lawyers will get the billions, the people actually affected by this will get a Denny's 10% off breakfast coupon from the lawyers.

Holy shit you can't see the forest for the trees. Incredibly ignorant on the topic while claiming others are. (guarantee didn't even search any of the things I mentioned either)

Just Google 'Great Pacific garbage patch', 'Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents', 'Nuclear Detonation Timeline "1945-1998"', 'worlds biggest landfills',and then the '25 Biggest Man Made Environmental Disasters In History' Oh, yeah, 'Space Debris'. Honestly, you have to be off...

That's not how any of this works

So because it was worse in certain cases back then it's perfectly fine today. Great logic, got it. Still didn't even address the actual question either.

Source? Just wondering how you know for sure MOST (almost all) environmentalists are stupid. Or, do you just desire them to be? Because it fits your mindset?

Actually, man made climate change is backed by the scientific consensus (observational fact). Religion is backed by nothing. They're incomparable. You're crazy. What is a global warmer anyway? lol